| On February 17, 2012, Senator Ben Nelson (and Representative Adrian Smith) voted with bipartisan majorities for a bill that extends the payroll tax cut for another year, extends long-term unemployment benefits and blocks a scheduled 27% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. The legislation passed by a 60-36 margin in the Senate and a 293-132 margin in the House. This legislation represents a victory for the middle class and senior citizens.
The bipartisan deal extends a 2% cut to the Social Security payroll tax giving the typical American worker roughly $1,000 more in take-home pay this year. This legislation also prevented a 27% cut in Medicare payments to doctors - which would have had a devastating impact on senior citizens' access to medical care. Sen. Ben Nelson described this victory for the American people as follows:
"Today's compromise prevents an imminent tax increase for one million Nebraskans. It will keep money in their pockets to use for food, clothing and daily expenses, while making sure the Social Security Trust Fund is protected.
"The economy is still quite fragile and letting the payroll tax cut expire at the end of this month would slow down the recovery. It would reduce consumer demand, as middle-class families would have less disposable income for goods and services. Businesses of all sizes have said that consumer demand is what drives them to hire new employees and expand."
What I find most disturbing about this vote is that this vital legislation was opposed by Mike Johanns, Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry. If these Republicans had their way and this legislation was defeated, the consequences would have been catastrophic. As a starting point, the average middle class worker would've been hit with a tax increase of $1,000.00 when people are still struggling to cope with higher gas and food prices. Failure to extend this tax cut would've endangered the nascent and still fragile economic recovery. Economists have said that the expiration of the tax cuts could reduce GDP growth by a half a percentage point and cost the economy 400,000 jobs by the fourth quarter of 2012.
Failure to pass this legislation would've also had serious consequences for senior citizens. If health care providers had been hit with a 27% cut in their Medicare reimbursement rate, many of these providers wouldn't have been able to afford to treat senior citizens. If Congress had failed to block this cut in the Medicare program, millions of seniors would have lost their doctors and had a hard time finding new doctors.
Republicans have justified their opposition to this legislation by claiming that it would endanger the funding of Social Security and increase the deficit. The rationale that these Republicans wanted to protect seniors is disingenuous in light of their apparent support of a 27% cut in Medicare payments to doctors.
The deficit rationale is equally disingenuous. Republicans have long supported the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts without demanding that this extension be paid for or offset by cutting programs. This payroll tax cut episode is the first time that the Republicans have ever demanded that a tax cut be paid for. The difference between the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut is that the Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy. Obviously, Johanns, Fortenberry and Terry see tax cuts for the wealthy as a higher priority.
Once again, Johanns, Fortenberry and Terry have shown their true colors with this irresponsible vote. They really don't care about working families and senior citizens. Instead, they favor the demands of the extreme Tea Party faction of the GOP and the interests of the wealthy.
Fortunately for Nebraskans, Sen. Ben Nelson chose to represent the interests of the middle class and senior citizens. Unlike Johanns, Fortenberry and Terry, Nelson is on our side. Let's hope Nebraska voters can maintain Nelson's tradition of siding with us by electing Chuck Hassebrook to the U.S. Senate this year. |
